Vikramajit Sen ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the plaintiff praying for anad interim injunction in respect of the suit property for preserving it in its presentposition and condition. This application has been filed in a suit for specificperformance, injunction and declaration. The facts as disclosed in the plaint are thatthe suit property was the selt-acquired property of defendant No. 1 and he was itsexclusive owner. On this premise, the parties executed a Receipt-cum-Agreementdated 14. 10. 1998 and Rs. two lacs were paid as a token advance. The various termsof the alleged Receipt-cum-Agreement have been setup. But significantly, in thisnarration the handwritten term, which is not denied by the parties, to the effect thata "collaboration Agreement will have to be signed by both the parties on the termsand conditions to be mutually agreed" was not stated. On the failure of defendantno. 1 to perform the contract written as well as verbal notices/demands wereissued lastly on 29. 5. 1999. Having learnt on 13. 6. 1999 of an intended sale bydefendant No. 1 to a third party, the plaintiff herein filed a suit bearing No. 1302/99 for permanent injunction, which suit is stated to have been filed by the plaintiff"due to extreme urgency". The plaint further discloses that the plaintiff came toknow that defendant No. 2 had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 7. 4. 1999with defendant No. 1 with regard to the entire terrace above the first floor with therights to carry out construction thereon and on the entire third floor. Vide ordersdated 21. 7. 1999 the interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo, wasrecalled, and an appeal against the order, being FAO (OS) 222/99 was also disposedof on 3. 8. 1999 with, inter alia, the following observations: "we have seen the photographs of the construction, which has already takenplace. The proposed building is almost complete. In our view, the learnedsingle Judge thus rightly refused relief. At this stage, it would be inappropriate to grant any relief in a suit only for an injunction. Appellant is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings, if he so desires. In thoseproceedings appellant may apply for such reliefs as he may be advised. Suchan application if made will undoubtedly be considered on its merits. Undoubtedly while considering that application the impugned order and/orthis order will not be considered. Appellant is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings, if he so desires. In thoseproceedings appellant may apply for such reliefs as he may be advised. Suchan application if made will undoubtedly be considered on its merits. Undoubtedly while considering that application the impugned order and/orthis order will not be considered. " ( 2 ) IT is further averred that defendant No. 1 had informed the plaintiff that thesuit property had been offered as Collateral Security to the Punjab National Bank,new Delhi and that the outstanding was only Rupees eighteen lacs and that thissum would be cleared from and out of the agreed amount of Rs. 22 lacs. However,the plaintiff later learnt that these outstandings were for the much larger sum ofrupees eighty three lacs. A perusal of legal notice dated 29. 5. 1999 discloses that thedemand raised by the plaintiff was that the original documents pertaining to the suitproperty be duly redeemed from the Punjab National Bank, New Delhi andpossession of this property be simultaneously handed over to the plaintiff. Para 15of the plaint mentions "that the plaintiff after coming to know of the magnitude ofthe construction being carried out at the suit property bearing No. D-67, East ofkailash, New Delhi, made enquiries from Municipal Corporation of Delhi, thedefendant No. 3, but they have refused to give any information to the plaintiff". Itis thereafter stated that the construction of the thrid floor is being carried outillegally. Various other infractions and transgressions, vis-a-vis Municipality Rulesallegedly committed by the defendant are thereafter mentioned. In para l7 it hasbeen averred that die agreement between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is a shamdocument, entered into only with a view to frustrate the plaintiff s agreement. Thereafter three reliefs are prayed for. ( 3 ) AFTER arguments were heard in length learned Counsel for the plaintiff hadprayed for an adjournment in order to file further documents. This was done on14. 12. 1999. The so called sham agreement between defendants 1 and 2 was filedalongwith the photocopy of the Sanctioned Plan dated March, 1998 and a copy ofthe Realisation Plan dated September, 1999. The plaintiff has also filed proceedingsinitiated by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against defendant No. 1 in respectof the deviations carried out. This was done on14. 12. 1999. The so called sham agreement between defendants 1 and 2 was filedalongwith the photocopy of the Sanctioned Plan dated March, 1998 and a copy ofthe Realisation Plan dated September, 1999. The plaintiff has also filed proceedingsinitiated by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against defendant No. 1 in respectof the deviations carried out. The order passed in these proceedings has beensubstantially relied upon to emphasise that it was the case of defendant No. 1 inthose proceedings that the construction had been started in April, 1998 on thesecond and third floors and the structure of the same was completed by June,1998and furnishing in April, 1999. ( 4 ) IN the Written Statement defendant No. 1 has emphasised that no concludedcontract had come into effect between the parties and that this term had beendeliberately concealed in the narration contained in the plaint. In the Writtenstatement the averments in the plaint has been specifically traversed and itscontents denied. It has been emphasised that a cheque for Rs. 2 lacs was dishonouredand that the plaintiff s lack of interest was manifest from 15. 10. 1998 itself. It ismentioned that the address given by the plaintiff is incorrect and that defendant No. I never had any direct dealings either personally or even telephonically with theplaintiff, who has always communicated with a person named Sunil Khandelwal. It is submitted that alleged transaction was entered into by the plaintiff with the soleintention to grab valuable property of the defendant. Thereafter the maintainabilityof the plaint is assailed on the grounds of it being incorrectly valued as well as byoperation of the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code and because of misjoinder ofparties. It is the defendant s case that despite being unable to conclude theagreement and / or have sufficient funds for the collaboration, Shri Sunil Khandelwalrefused to accept the return of Rs. two lacs and demanded a sum of Rs. fifteen lacsto settle the matter. In sub-para VII of para 2 of Reply on Merits it is stated thatconstruction at the site has been going on at full swing for the five preceding months,which is apparent to all and sundry. At the time of arguments learned Counsel fordefendant No. 1 had again offered to return the sum of Rs. two lacs alongwithreasonable interest but this offer was declined by learned Counsel for the plaintiff. At the time of arguments learned Counsel fordefendant No. 1 had again offered to return the sum of Rs. two lacs alongwithreasonable interest but this offer was declined by learned Counsel for the plaintiff. ( 5 ) BEFORE a party is entitled to the grant of an injunction he must conclusivelysatisfy the three requirements of the existence of prima facie case, of the balance ofconvenience being in his favour, and that if the injunction is not granted irreparableloss and injury would be caused to the applicant. ( 6 ) I am not convinced that a primafacie case exists in favour of the plaintiff. Ithas been rightly stressed by learned Counsel for defendant No. 1 that there has beena material suppression of the fact, in that the Receipt-cum-Agreement contained aspecific clause to the effect that a Collaboration Agreement would be entered intobetween the parties. It is true that a copy of the agreement has been filed alongwiththe plaint but it is equally true that this very significant and important factor hasbeen glossed over in it. An agreement does not have to take on a particular form forit to be given effect to become legally effacious. Reliance was placed on J. K. Industries Limited v. International Cooperative Alliance Domus Trust and Ors. , 79 (99)prayed for an adjournment in order to file further documents. This was done on14. 12. 1999. The so called sham agreement between defendants 1 and 2 was filedalongwith the photocopy of the Sanctioned Plan dated March, 1998 and a copy ofthe Realisation Plan dated September, 1999. The plaintiff has also filed proceedingsinitiated by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against defendant No. 1 in respectof the deviations carried out. The order passed in these proceedings has beensubstantially relied upon to emphasise that it was the case of defendant No. 1 inthose proceedings that the construction had been started in April, 1998 on thesecond and third floors and the structure of the same was completed by June,1998 and furnishing in April, 1999.